“Section 36(1)(va)”

Atlas Castalloy Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(1) (2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Due Date For Filing Return Of Income.

Year: 2017-18 order dated 14.05.2019 by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC by making further addition/disallowance of INR 2,35,060/- under Section 36(1)(va)/43B of the Act being employees‟ contribution to Employees‟ State Insurance Corporation (ESI) and Provident Fund (PF) made after the due date specified ... account of appellant‟s failure to pay the employee‟s contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per section 36(1)(va) is strictly in accordance with law and clearly comes under the prima facie adjustments as envisages u/s. 143(1)(a)(iv). The order u/s. 154 issued

Axis Carriers & Logisticas Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal of the appellant on the ground that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as ‘the Act’) is retrospective in nature. 2. Considering the facts ... Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not considering argument that section 36(1)(va) speaks only of allowance and not of disallowance and that if the amount is not allowable u/s 36

Paramount Health Services and Insurance Tpa Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.2547 /Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2017-18) Paramount Health Vs. Cit(A) Services & Insurance Tpa Nfac, Delhi Pvt. Limited, 1St Floor, Elite Auto House, 54-A, M Vasanji Marg, Mumbai – 400 069 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccp4465H Appellant .. Respondent

vide ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Bang/ 2021 dated 13.12.2021 wherein it is held that explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act 2021 proposing amendment in Section 36(1)(va) ITA No.2547/Mum/2021 AY. 2017-18 3 Paramount Health Services & Insurance TPA Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) NFAC as well as section ... Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd., (supra) has taken the view that employee's contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act would also be covered under section 43B of the Act and therefore if the share of the employee's share of contribution

M/S. Oricon Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT, RG-8(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2113 & 2440/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Oricon Enterprises Vs. Dcit, Range-8(2)(1) Limited, (Amalgamated 6Th Floor, Aayakar Company)(Erstwhile Oriental Bhavan, Containers Ltd, Amalgamating Mumbai - 400020 Company, Now Amalgamated With Oricon Enterprises Limited) 1076, Dr. E Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai -400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaco0480F Appellant .. Respondent

Rs.34,36,947/-being delayed payment of employees contribution to Provident Fund/Employees’ State Insurance (PF/ESI) by invoking the provision of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act and the reasons assigned for doing so is wrong and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case ... vide ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Bang/ 2021 dated 13.12.2021 wherein it is held that explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act 2021 proposing amendment in Section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B is applicable only from 01.04.2021. The relevant part of the decision is reproduced as under

M/S. Chemtron Science Laboratories Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.2386/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2018-19) M/S. Chemtron Science Laboratories Private Limited, El-47, Electronic Zone, Midc, Mahape, Navi Mumbai 400 710. Pan: Aaccc-3596-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-(Nafc) Delhi. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Shashank Mehta ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

State Transport Corporation, 41 taxmann.com 100/ 366 ITR 170 and judgments by other non-Jurisdictional High Courts and referring to the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021 disallowed assessee’s claim u/s. 36(1)(va ... submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Crescent Roadways Pvt. Ltd. [2021] TS 510-ITAT-2021 (Hyd) has held the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act is prospective effective from 01/04/2021. 3. Per contra, Ms. Vranda U. Matkari representing the Department vehemently defended

M/S. Oricon Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. -8(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2113 & 2440/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Oricon Enterprises Vs. Dcit, Range-8(2)(1) Limited, (Amalgamated 6Th Floor, Aayakar Company)(Erstwhile Oriental Bhavan, Containers Ltd, Amalgamating Mumbai - 400020 Company, Now Amalgamated With Oricon Enterprises Limited) 1076, Dr. E Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai -400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaco0480F Appellant .. Respondent

Rs.34,36,947/-being delayed payment of employees contribution to Provident Fund/Employees’ State Insurance (PF/ESI) by invoking the provision of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act and the reasons assigned for doing so is wrong and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case ... vide ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Bang/ 2021 dated 13.12.2021 wherein it is held that explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act 2021 proposing amendment in Section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B is applicable only from 01.04.2021. The relevant part of the decision is reproduced as under

Nss Equipments India LLP, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.1394/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2018-19) Nss Equipments India Llp, Shetty House, Panchsheel Nagar, Vasant Patil Marg, Sion, Chnabhatti, Mumbai 400 022. Pan: Aakfn-7271-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Dy.Cit, Cpc Bangalore, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No.48/1 48/2, Beratenaagrahara Begur, Hosur Road, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 100. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri C.T. Mathews सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

No.2, the assessee has assailed disallowance of Rs.2,01,131/- in respect of delay in payment of Provident Fund and ESI contribution under section. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961[ in short ‘the Act’]. The ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the Central Processing ... decision in the case of Unifac Management Services (India) (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, 100 taxmann.com 244 (Madras) and referring to the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021 disallowed assessee’s claim u/s. 36(1)(va

Assort Staffing Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Asst Dir of Income Tax CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

income u/s. 139(1) of the Act, then same is allowable deduction. Ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T. Act by Finance Act, 2021 is only prospective in nature i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and not retrospective ... assessee and against the respondent-revenue. There shall be no order as to costs." 7.2 The further question is whether the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent

Nm Diagnostics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhnm Diagnostics Private Vs. Dcit, Cpc Limited, 32, Bangalore Summerville, Jn. Of 14Th 560500 & 33Rd, Above Bombay Blue Restaurant, Link Road, Khar (West), Mumbai – 400050 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aadcr1280P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sunil Hirawat Respondent By : C.T. Mathews Date Of Hearing 18.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O. U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: “(1) On Facts & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.2,08,464/Being Belated Payment Of Provident Fund U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act.

vide ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Bang/ 2021 dated 13.12.2021 wherein it is held that explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act 2021 proposing amendment in Section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B is applicable only from 01.04.2021. The relevant part of the decision is reproduced as under ... supra) has taken the view that employee's contribution under ITA No. 363/Mum/2022 A.Y.2017-18 3 NM Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore section 36(1)(va) of the Act would also be covered under section 43B of the Act and therefore if the share of the employee's share

Quick Builders, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhquick Builders Vs. Dcit, Circle 22(1) Plot No. 142, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 08, Piramal Shah House, S.V.Road, Chambers, Lalbaug, Khar, West, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Mumbai – 400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaafq0227F Appellant .. Respondent

Finance Act, 2021 and considering the same to apply retrospectively which is in direct contravention of the law since the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B are applicable w.e.f. 01/04/2021 and the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred not to consider the insertion ... explanation to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B under Finance Act, 2021 as clarificatory in nature and the law to be applied prospectively. 4. In the circumstances and facts of our case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the TDS credit

ITO 13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. 3S Integrated Facility Management Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer for Assessment Year 2018–19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

held to be allowable as deduction ITA no. 2491 & 2492/Mum/2021 M/s 35 Integrated Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. AYs 18–19 & 19–20 under section 36(1)(va) of the income–tax Act, 1961 (the Act) read with section 43B of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer aggrieved and has preferred ... prescribed vide section 43B does not apply to claim of deduction relating to employee's contribution to welfare funds which are governed by section 36(1)(va) of the Act." The appellant prays that the order of the Ld.CIT (A) be set aside and the order

ITO 13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. 3S Integrated Facility Mangement Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer for Assessment Year 2018–19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

held to be allowable as deduction ITA no. 2491 & 2492/Mum/2021 M/s 35 Integrated Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. AYs 18–19 & 19–20 under section 36(1)(va) of the income–tax Act, 1961 (the Act) read with section 43B of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer aggrieved and has preferred ... prescribed vide section 43B does not apply to claim of deduction relating to employee's contribution to welfare funds which are governed by section 36(1)(va) of the Act." The appellant prays that the order of the Ld.CIT (A) be set aside and the order

Malgudi Foods Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhmalgudi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cpc, Bangalore 8, Kamala Bhavan 560100 Sharma, Industrial Estates Walbhat Road Ram Mandir (E) 400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaecm8352L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : B.K. Bagchi Date Of Hearing 13.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O. U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y. 2019-20. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made Of Rs. 27,62,936/Being Payment Of Pf & Esic Dues W/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act Considering The Same As Not Deposited On Time Ignoring The Fact That The Delay Was Marginal & Payment Was Made Before Filing The Return.

vide ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Bang/ 2021 dated 13.12.2021 wherein it is held that explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act 2021 proposing amendment in Section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B is applicable only from 01.04.2021. The relevant part of the decision is reproduced as under ... Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd., (supra) has taken the view that employee's contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act would also be covered under section 43B of the Act and therefore if the share of the employee's share of contribution

Babubhai Jagjivandas, Mumbai vs. ADIT (CPC), Banglore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhbabubhai Jagjivandas Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income 128, Vishnu Niketan, Tax(Cpc), Bangalore Prathna Samaj Road, [Acit-19(1)Mumbai] New Charni Road, Matru Mandir, Mumbai – 400004 Mumbai - 400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaafb5829N Appellant .. Respondent

decision of non-jurisdictional High Court, relief should not be refused to assessee” c. By disregarding the fact that the amendment made to section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021 is not retrospective as is recently held in the case of M/s Crescent Roadways Private Limited ... vide ITA Nos. 596 & 597/Bang/ 2021 dated 13.12.2021 wherein it is held that explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act 2021 proposing amendment in Section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B is applicable only from 01.04.2021. The relevant part of the decision is reproduced as under

Ajay Naresh Aggarwal, Mumbai vs. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Kavitha Rajagopal () Ajay Naresh Aggarwal Vs Income-Tax Officer 6 & 7, Court House Circle 18(1), Mumbai L.T. Marg, Dhobi Talao Mumbai-400 002 Pan : Adopa5571B Appellant Respondent

passed by the CPC in assessee’s case whereby disallowance to the tune of Rs.16,99,705/- under section 36(1)(va) was made with regard to the employees’ contribution to provident fund and ESIC which was duly deducted by the Assessee from the salary of the employees. The said ... filing of return of income under section 139(1) and since the employees’ contribution to PF / ESI falls under the ambit of section 36(1)(va), the same is disallowed if paid after the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts and not before the filing of return of income

Aura Facilities Management Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore - CPC

In the result, appeal is allowed

employee‟s contribution to PF and ESIC paid belatedly. Taking view of the law as explained by the insertion of Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, considering the applicability of the explanation retrospectively ... which was dismissed by the CIT(A) placing reliance on the provisions contained in Section 143(1)(a)(iv) read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act holding as under: “4.2 Findings 4.2.1 Before adverting to the facts of the instant case, a note may be taken